Slashdot Mirror
AOL Now Supports OpenID
Nurgled writes "On Sunday John Panzer announced that AOL now has experimental OpenID server support. This means that every AOL user now has an OpenID identifier. OpenID is a decentralized cross-site authentication system which has been growing in popularity over the last few months. AOL is the first large provider to offer OpenID services, and though they do not currently accept logins to their services with OpenID identifiers from elsewhere, they are apparently working on it. The next big challenge for OpenID proponents is teaching AOL's userbase how to make use of this new technology."
I'll have a personal Identification PIN number please, what the hell is an OpenID identifier if not an OpenID ID?
So the idea is pretty cool... Now that you've got an OpenID, you could go ahead and use that login on whatever else supports OpenID. The problem lies with the fact that 50% of AOL's userbase doesn't even own a computer. According to some stats that AOL released some time ago...
Single sign-on across the internet is a bad idea. As more sites require it, people's web browsing habits will be tracked on an unprecedented scale. Seriously, what benefit does it provide? I certainly don't want to log onto my bank's website automatically. And in general, I don't want to reveal anything about my identity unless there is a very good reason to do so. The whole purpose of OpenID and similar technologies is to make it easier to track people. This is not the way I want the internet to develop.
One major problem I see with this sort of initiative is spoofing of your provider's sign-in page. Unlike spoofing in its current form, if someone was able to get the password for your OpenID provider, he'll have access to every single one of the accounts you've used that ID with. It's putting all your eggs in one basket -- with the way everything is currently handled, your sign-on information to an individual site may be compromised, but you won't lose everything else.
Is there a solution to this kind of problem, or is OpenID really only targeted to low-risk authentication; i.e., for forums and social networking sites?
No comment.
OpenID is the phisher's dream. I honestly don't get what would motivate someone to implement this specification.
Well, anyone can run their own OpenID server to authenticate against, but to use Passport, you rely upon Microsoft's passport.net servers no matter which email address you associate with it.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
AOL's openID's are all in AOL's namespace; DirtyTurtle278346812376.aol.com isn't going to prevent you having DirtyTurtle278346812376.myopenidserver.org.
The next big challenge for OpenID proponents is teaching AOL's userbase how to make use of this new technology.
I think I see the flaw in your plan.
Technoli
The joke is often repeated. But U.S. trademark law may help explain RAS syndrome. Trademarks are adjectives and should be used with a generic term, even if they contain an abbreviation of the generic term. Hence "TCBY yogurt" even though "TCBY" is "the country's best yogurt", "DC comics" even though "DC" was "detective comics", "SAT reasoning test" even though "SAT" was "scholastic aptitude test", and "SPAM luncheon meat" even though "SPAM" stood for "specially processed assorted meat" at one time. Writers pressured by trademark owners to include the generic terms in their copy tend to overextend the habit of abbreviation + generic even to cases where the abbreviation is not a trademark.
Another cause is to disambiguate homophonic or homographic acronyms. "Put your PIN in the computer" could be misheard as "put your pin (or pen) in the computer", which could damage the machine. "Put your PIN number in the computer" has one interpretation.
"OpenID is a simple single sign-on mechanism advanced by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal. In OpenID, your identity is a URL." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID
Basically, OpenID provides for distributed authentication.
IMO, what makes OpenID interesting is that in the 2.0 protocol, XRI (i-names) have been included, which opens the door to enabling selective, authenticated authorization of access to services, be it as simple as the ability to contact me (I would allow any parent of a child in my kid's pre-school class to phone me) or as complicated (eventually) as any contract you can imagine.
OpenPrivacy, on the other hand, assumes such services as a starting point, which is why I suspended development of OpenPrivacy in 2002 and began working on XRI/i-names. OpenPrivacy will use sophisticated techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs to enable distributed reputation providers and truly pseudonymous identities that cannot be traced to their owner (unless such verification is mutually requested), but it requires strong, secure identity as a starting point.
I look forward to creating grassroots i-names-enabled communities soon (starting in March, if all goes well) and eventually getting back to my OpenPrivacy roots - which is where (IMO) things start getting really interesting.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
It seems OpenID prevents this problem. With OpenID the only thing you give to the websites you login to is your URL (such as https://aol.com/cooldude ). You can even give your URL to your enemies. You never give your OpenID password to any site except AOL, or if you run your own OpenID server, you never give your password to anyone at all. If I understand it right the whole encrypted procedure goes something like this:
You're trying to login to example.com
Example.com says: Who are you?
You say: I'm "https://aol.com/cooldude"
Example.com asks AOL: Is this guy really cooldude?
AOL sends a message to you asking: Example.com says you're trying to log on, is it really you?
You say to AOL: Yea it's me, here's my password to prove it.(AOL doesn't tell example.com your password. Also you save the hassle of entering your password for any site if you already logged in to AOL, like at the beginning of each day.)
AOL says to Example.com: Yes we verified it's cooldude.
Example.com says to you: Hi cooldude from aol.com, we've verified it's you again. Welcome.
Note that if you log into AOL at the beginning of the day, then for you this whole procedure boils down to you just entering your URL to login and then pressing a button from AOL to authorize the login.
Some advantages and disadvantages are:
You can use one username and password for every site and you only have to enter your password once a day.
If you used the same username and password at a lot of sites before, then with OpenID you don't have to worry about your password being compromised on one site by lax security or a crooked site owner(like a phisher) and then having your accounts compromised at all the other sites.
I'm not sure about the privacy issues. If your OpenID provider allows it(or if you set up your own server) you could set up an unlimited number of ID's (eg cooldude2, cooldude3, etc.) I don't see how you would be giving up any more privacy than any other system. And if your provider allows it you could save a lot of trouble and use the same password for all your IDs. Your OpenID provider could track which sites you log into, but you could just be your own provider or choose one you trust not to track you. Of course the sites you log into could require only certain OpenID providers like AOL, Microsoft, Verisign, etc. You might not be able to use your own server. Sites might only accept OpenIDs from providers that use strong identification, like Paypal's requirement that you control a checking account to be confirmed, because banks in the US are required by law to get ID before opening a checking account(says Paypal).
If sites only recognize OpenIDs from certain providers, at least the list of providers would likely be more inclusive than something like Microsoft Passport which has only one provider.
OpenID providers might differentiate themselves on their security. Verisign for example may try to claim that their OpenID service (if they had it) is secure enough to use for bank logins.